335 réponses à ce sujet

[Azaron Nightblade]

FeliciaM wrote...

I hope they bring it back, too. I enjoyed my DW warrior. I also enjoy it in most games that allow me to play that class/spec (I played a fury warrior and enhance shaman in WoW!)

Yep, I've had my share of them in NWN and KOTOR as well.
I love the whole fast, flashing blades fighting style a lot more than I do two-handed styles.
It's always dual wielding swordsman or a classic "knight" with long sword and shield for me when I play warriors.

[ViSeiRa]

It's already confirmed back.. I remember one of the attendees at PAX took a screenshot and posted it on her blog, I'll try to hunt it down!

Edit:

Here's the pic:

Modifié par ViSeirA, 26 septembre 2013 - 10:02 .

[Azaron Nightblade]

Very cool, thanks ViSeirA!

[Treacherous J Slither]

redneck nosferatu wrote...

I definitely support bringing back dual-wielding warriors. Wanna keep rogues "relevant"? A rogue isn't defined by their combat style to begin with. Give them more access to support or noncombat skills, like trapfinding/traplaying, unlocking doors and chests, and being able to move about unseen. That's what made rogues a must-have in most RPG's, not having exclusive access to a fighting style most often associated with warriors in other settings.

A warrior should always be the master of war, having access to all available armors and fighting styles; sword-and-board, zweihander, dual-wielding, and even archery. Rogues are defined by their tricks and skills both on and off the battlefield. Just my 2 cents.

^This right here. So this. The man has perfectly stated exactly what I came in here to say. Kudos to you sir.

[NYG1991]

I think rogues should have the advantage when it comes to using traps/grenades. I'd like to be able to spam trinkets till I ran out instead of the 30 sec cooldown.

[Merkit91]

ViSeirA wrote...

It's already confirmed back.. I remember one of the attendees at PAX took a screenshot and posted it on her blog, I'll try to hunt it down!

Edit:

Here's the pic:

images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130901152845/dragonage/images/f/fe/Cassandra_DA_Inquisitor.png - this is the actual screen from PAX.
The two crossed swords are likely to represent damage or attack stats.

[Zeldrik1389]

Dual wield is only for rogue? Bull****

this guy disagrees.
 

I want my dual wield warrior back, BioWare!!! Enough with stupid restriction!

Modifié par Zeldrik1389, 26 septembre 2013 - 10:26 .

[Plaintiff]

"It's totally lame that warriors can't dual-wield, but it's fine to lock rogues out of sword/shield and two-handed weapons. Logic!"

I don't want warriors to have dual-wielding. It was totally ****ty in Origins when Rogues had less skills than every other class and two thirds of their skills were co-opted by warriors.

I want as little overlap between all of the classes as possible.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 septembre 2013 - 10:31 .

[sandalisthemaker]

Leave dual-wielding to the rogues. I'm okay with both weapons being daggers again as well.

[Plaintiff]

Zeldrik1389 wrote...

Dual wield is only for rogue? Bull****

this guy disagrees.
 

I want my dual wield warrior back, BioWare!!! Enough with stupid restriction!

Light armour. Short weapons.

You realise if this guy was a Dragon Age character, he'd fall under the "Rogue" archetype, right?

[David7204]

Nice thong-looking thing.

[Zeldrik1389]

Plaintiff wrote...

Zeldrik1389 wrote...

Dual wield is only for rogue? Bull****

this guy disagrees.
 

I want my dual wield warrior back, BioWare!!! Enough with stupid restriction!

Light armour. Short weapons.

You realise if this guy was a Dragon Age character, he'd fall under the "Rogue" archetype, right?

It really depends on your definition of "rogues".
To me, I don't care about what they wear, but more about how they fight. Direct confrontation, that's warrior. Rogue = stealth,

Like in Skyrim for instance, my dual wield character wear only light armor, but he never sneak, use invisible spell, or any poison ever. Instead, he use quick dps to kill enemy before they kill him. It's direct confrontation so he's still a warrior in my book.

Modifié par Zeldrik1389, 26 septembre 2013 - 10:50 .

[Ryzaki]

JSlither wrote...

redneck nosferatu wrote...

I definitely support bringing back dual-wielding warriors. Wanna keep rogues "relevant"? A rogue isn't defined by their combat style to begin with. Give them more access to support or noncombat skills, like trapfinding/traplaying, unlocking doors and chests, and being able to move about unseen. That's what made rogues a must-have in most RPG's, not having exclusive access to a fighting style most often associated with warriors in other settings.

A warrior should always be the master of war, having access to all available armors and fighting styles; sword-and-board, zweihander, dual-wielding, and even archery. Rogues are defined by their tricks and skills both on and off the battlefield. Just my 2 cents.

^This right here. So this. The man has perfectly stated exactly what I came in here to say. Kudos to you sir.

Agreed.

I want my dual wielding warriors.

Or at least give warriors back Archery. It's complete bullocks that warriors are stuck with S&S or just 2HD weapons. If warriors and rogues MUST be different give warriors crossbows or something.

Rogues can already detect traps and unlock traps why do they need to take both dual wielding and archery too? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 septembre 2013 - 10:52 .

[DooomCookie]

Those saying rogues weren't relevant, a DW dagger CUN rogue would have the highest single target DPS in the game. At least until archers in Awakening. People just always gave them DEX.

A little OCD part of me wants two 'styles' for each class. Sword and board and 2h for warriors; DW and archery for rogues; healing and damage for mages. But there's no harm having the feature there I suppose.

[AresKeith]

Plaintiff wrote...

Zeldrik1389 wrote...

Dual wield is only for rogue? Bull****

this guy disagrees.
 

I want my dual wield warrior back, BioWare!!! Enough with stupid restriction!

Light armour. Short weapons.

You realise if this guy was a Dragon Age character, he'd fall under the "Rogue" archetype, right?

Light armour doesn't automatically = Rogue

[Plaintiff]

AresKeith wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Zeldrik1389 wrote...

Dual wield is only for rogue? Bull****

this guy disagrees.
 

I want my dual wield warrior back, BioWare!!! Enough with stupid restriction!

Light armour. Short weapons.

You realise if this guy was a Dragon Age character, he'd fall under the "Rogue" archetype, right?

Light armour doesn't automatically = Rogue

Did you actually read my post? We're specifically talking within the context of Dragon Age class archtypes and mechanics. That this character would be referred to as a "warrior" in other media is completely irrelevent.

As it happens, the actual people of Thedas make no functional distinction between rogues and warriors. 'Rogue' is a metagame distinction that the lore doesn't actually recognise.

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...
Rogues can already detect traps and unlock traps why do they need to take both dual wielding and archery too? 

Warriors could do that also, in Origins. And why should Rogues only get to perform one unique function, while warriors and mages get dozens? Why should all classes not be equally fun to play?

[Ryzaki]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Rogues can already detect traps and unlock traps why do they need to take both dual wielding and archery too? 

Warriors could do that also, in Origins. And why should Rogues only get to perform one unique function, while warriors and mages get dozens? Why should all classes not be equally fun to play?

Oh great that's in origins.

Not how they can do that now.

And what unique functions do warriors get that rogues don't? What's the warrior equivelent to being able to detect traps in DA2? I'll wait. (Edit: Mages *can* heal so yeah i'd say that's a unique function)

As it is rogues can be both melee or ranged dps, can open chests unlock doors detect and disarm traps and warriors can...tank or dps. Yay.

So yeah how are all classes equally fun to play in this scenario where you miss out on loot/ability to detect traps by playing a class other than rogue?

I mean OMG. Warriors being able to dual wield means rogues are useless now. They won't remain the highest dps dealers, they won't remain able to detect and undo traps. Nah. Warriors getting dual wielding and archery totally makes rogues worthless.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:09 .

[themikefest]

dual welding warriors and as well as warrior using the bow would be nice

[Mr.House]

Ryzaki wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Rogues can already detect traps and unlock traps why do they need to take both dual wielding and archery too? 

Warriors could do that also, in Origins. And why should Rogues only get to perform one unique function, while warriors and mages get dozens? Why should all classes not be equally fun to play?

Oh great that's in origins.

Not how they can do that now.

And what unique functions do warriors get that rogues don't? What's the warrior equivelent to being able to detect traps in DA2? I'll wait. (Edit: Mages *can* heal so yeah i'd say that's a unique function)

As it is rogues can be both melee or ranged dps, can open chests unlock doors detect and disarm traps and warriors can...tank or dps. Yay.

So yeah how are all classes equally fun to play in this scenario where you miss out on loot/ability to detect traps by playing a class other than rogue?

I mean OMG. Warriors being able to dual wield means rogues are useless now. They won't remain the highest dps dealers, they won't remain able to detect and undo traps. Nah. Warriors getting dual wielding and archery totally makes rogues worthless.

+1

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...
Oh great that's in origins.

Not how they can't do that now.

And what unique functions do warriors and mage get that rogues don't? What's the warrior equivelent to being able to detect traps in DA2? I'll wait.

If you aren't going to be ciritical of Origins for depriving Rogues, then it's completely hypocritical to criticise DA2 for depriving Warriors. DA2 did not make things equal, but it made them vastly more fair.

I never claimed that Warriors are not deprived, nor did I say they should not be not be given added functions. I said they should not get extra ones. Nor should aspects of other classes be rendered redundant.

By all means, give them an extra function. Let them break down weak walls to access hidden rooms or something. That would be equivalent to the Rogue's ability to detect traps and pick locks, not giving them a whole extra skill tree that renders the same tree redundant for other classes.

As it is rogues can be both melee or ranged dps, can open chests unlock doors detect and disarm traps and warriors can...tank or dps. Yay. 

Rogues have two ways they can develop. Warriors have two ways they can develop. How is that unfair? Or are you just butthurt because they're not the specific options you wanted?

So yeah how are all classes equally fun to play in this scenario where you miss out on loot/ability to detect traps by playing a class other than rogue?

Except you don't, at all, because in both games there are at least two other rogues you can bring with you who can perform those functions. Warriors lose out on nothing. Hell, you can play almost the entire game through to the end, controlling one of those rogue characters.

I mean OMG. Warriors being able to dual wield means rogues are useless now. They won't remain the highest dps dealers, they won't remain able to detect and undo traps. Nah. Warriors getting dual wielding and archery totally makes rogues worthless. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

I don't give a crap about any of that nerd stuff. Less branches for class development = less fun to play. How is this not obvious?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:19 .

[Mr.House]

Warriors should have access to all weapons and their trees. There is no reason to limit it. Rogues will still have lock picking and detecting traps and hopefully a better stealth then DAII.

[Ryzaki]

@Plantiff: How on EARTH did DA2 make things fair? It took everything away from warriors and kept them with rogues. That's not fair in the least bit.

Warriors and rogues were almost equal in DAO. Rogues are superior in DA2. That's not fair in the least bit.

Except they never had additional functions from rogues. They had nearly the same functions. (Except rogues did better damage thanks to stuns and backstabbing). How horrible.

And why should warriors be forced into melee while rogues get both melee and ranged choices? How is that equal? Oh noes warriors have dual wielding and archery. I suppose the rogues stealth, backstabs, grenades and trap skills mean nothing.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:16 .

[Mr.House]

Ryzaki wrote...

How on EARTH did DA2 make things fair? It took everything away from warriors and kept them with rogues. That's not fair in the least bit.

Warriors and rogues were almost equal in DAO. Rogues are superior in DA2. That's not fair in the least bit.

Except they never had additional functions from rogues. They had nearly the same functions. (Except rogues did better damage thanks to stuns and backstabbing). How horrible.

And why should warriors be forced into melee while rogues get both melee and ranged choices? How is that equal? Oh noes warriors have dual wielding and archery. I suppose the rogues stealth, backstabs, grenades and trap skills mean nothing.

Preach it sister.

[Wulfram]

I find it difficult to see a clearly distinct niche for a dual wielding warrior when compared to DW rogues and the other types of warriors. I mean, I don't have anything hugely against them, but I don't think they'd add a great amount to the game. Give me warrior archery instead, please, I hate having characters who can't fight at range if the situation calls for it.

From an aesthetic point of view I'd rather have a rogue melee option that wasn't dual wielding. I dislike dual wielding being quite so ubiquitous.